>oop is so bad there's books about unfucking your oop
It is not about OOP, it is about people.
>tfw you can fuck up anything
>tfw coffee cups have "danger:hot" signs and everything are gummy and soft to prevent accidents caused by dumb people
If many little monkeys try to build a giant palace, there would be some collapses and problems. And that's how programming as a craft (not as an art) works, no matter whether you use oop or functional or declarative approach. Deal with it.
>>54820361
>If many little monkeys try to build a giant palace, there would be some collapses and problems.
Especially when they have all that modern stuff like databases, automatic garbage collection, static checking,automatic integration and smoke tests, quality assurance team etc etc and still they haven't any clue what they are doing.
>>54820361
This. OOP while itmay have it's flaws (and I personally don't like it either), is not 'teh evil'.
People are trained to write C in any language, to make italian cuisine with their code, and often they only care to have the thing work through patchwork rather than good design.
But refactoring is usually a good thing, whatever paradigm you use. Code rarely comes out clean the first time you do it, even the second and third times, and with a better understanding of the problem from a first prototype one is in good position to refactor and come out with a better, more modular, extensible design.
>>54820246
>2016
>Still butthurt that programming styles other than your favorite exist
Even your C imperative programming gods like Linus accept that OOP has its place so can you please get over it?
>>54821097
OP's problem is sour grapes. He couldn't wrap his head around OOP so he hates it.
OOP isn't shit. OP is.
Because non-OOP code doesn't ever need refactoring.
>>54822202
This.
>>54822590
And this.
OP should go practice FizzBuzz until he gets it right.
